Digging deeper into mutual fund performance metrics
This brief is the first in a series discussing performance metrics that are important to mutual fund investors. Absolute performance is vital, but does it tell the whole story? If it did, nobody would ever invest in the trillions of dollars of U.S. Government securities which currently yield only a few basis points. While this is an extreme example, it does highlight the central principle of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), which says that there are two factors driving compensation to investors: The time value of money, and risk. While the time value of money is generally represented by the “risk-free rate” (the yield on said government securities), risk is more open to interpretation. One commonly accepted method of understanding the risk of an investment is by calculating its beta.
Beta: What is it?
Why should mutual fund investors care?
Knowing a fund’s absolute performance without knowing its risk yields an incomplete analysis. CAPM tells us that more volatile or riskier investments should provide higher returns, but that theory is not borne out by recent empirical studies. A fund may outperform its benchmark or even its peers, but do so while taking on undue market risk. What amount of risk is “undue”? That’s for each investor to decide based on his or her own tolerances and objectives. Beta is just one metric that can help an investor understand how and why an investment will perform relative to the broader market.
What is a good number?
How do The Needham Funds measure up
|
1 Year
|
3 Year
|
5 Year
|
Since Inception
|
|
| Needham Growth Fund |
0.99
|
0.87
|
0.99
|
1.07
|
| Needham Aggressive Growth Fund |
0.57
|
0.76
|
0.86
|
0.79
|
| Needham Small Cap Growth Fund |
0.55
|
0.76
|
0.82
|
0.85
|
| Market Index[1] |
1.00
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
1.00 |
Any limitations?
Beta is not without its shortcomings. First, its calculation is based on historical data and there is no standard way of deciding which time period to use. Many beta calculations use five years of monthly data but some believe a shorter time period is appropriate. Consistency is desirable when comparing funds. Second, and maybe more importantly, beta is calculated off of past fund and market returns. Such a historic calculation may not capture the risk profile of the fund today, and may not be relevant to the fund in the future if the composition of the portfolio changes markedly.
Conclusion
Despite its limitations, beta is a useful tool for understanding the market risk inherent in an investment, including an investment in a portfolio of stocks such as a mutual fund. Analyzing fund performance in tandem with beta can help an investor decide if a fund is achieving returns commensurate with its level of risk, and whether that level of risk is consistent with that investor’s goals. Furthermore, when the empirical evidence set forth by Baker, Bradley and Taliaferro is considered, investors may benefit from the “Low Beta Anomaly” in the form of higher returns coupled with lower risk by investing in low beta stocks and the portfolios that hold them.